FrackNation (2013)

Very well executed

SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Am I Missing Something?

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Phelim McAleer in "FrackNation" provides a well researched, thorough, entertaining, and scientific rebuttal to the emotional pleas provided in Josh Fox's "GasLand." Opponents of hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking) would have us believe that the human push-and-pull of fueling civilization versus conserving the biosphere is a left-versus-right or climate change supporter versus denier phenomenon; in fact it is a conflict of science versus emotion. This is the genius of "GasLand": we want to get emotionally angry over a cause. "FrackNation," however, tosses some ice onto those smoldering embers with cold facts.Nothing is more damaging to the platform of "GasLand" supporters than Fox's multiple refusals to answer pointed questions from McAleer:McAleer: "Isn't it true that decades before fracking started, that there was methane in the water there?" (regarding the flammable tap water) Fox: "Can you identify yourself?" McAleer: "My name is Philem McAleer." Fox: "Okay, where are you from?" McAleer: "I'm a journalist."Fox: "Journalist from where?" McAleer: "From Ireland." Fox: "From Ireland?" McAleer: "Yes. Isn't it true..." Fox: "You're concerned about the fracking going on in Ireland?" McAleer: "No, I'm concerned about the accuracy of the documentary."Fox: "You're a journalist for what paper?"On the surface, a cause's champion refusing to answer the opposition is unsettling but it goes further; Fox's thinly veiled attempts to impugn the credentials of McAleer--even his nationality--and his absolute refusal to respond to challenges to "GasLand's" documentary authenticity leave the watcher mentally ticking off points in McAleer's column. But there's more.At another point, Fox repeatedly refuses to engage MacAleer in conversation at an event held at the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles. Eventually McAleer and his director are ejected from the event... scientific dialog indeed. Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, McAleer obtains video from the US Government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the largest environmental regulatory body in the world. In this video, the Sautner family--the champions of "GasLand"--were presented with the results of an EPA sampling of their well water, demonstrating that the well water was not contaminated. The Sautners react with emotion: the wife storms out, the husband demanding the results are false, and the EPA representative stating "we found no contaminants."Scientific and methodical thinking people of the entire political spectrum are forced by this film to consider the evidence of the hydraulic fracturing issue and see the opponents reacting with emotional pleas and the supporters providing clear and well documented science. --oversoul

Speaking now as a less extreme environmentalist - this director is professional and not scared to confront opponents head-on sometimes reminding me of Michael Moore. He also uncovers a great deal of misinformation. His "investigation" spans all the way from Western Europe, thru New England, down to Texas and finally to California. Sorry I did not see this one a long time ago......it helped me to get a clearer understanding of the real issues because it references very reliable and reputable sources and solid scientific data. I could only find one piece of misinformation in the documentary......For those whose motto is... "My mind is made up so don't try to confuse me with facts"..... do not watch this documentary.... it will just exacerbate your state of confusion!

This movie (I cannot refer to it as a documentary, as it has been carefully scripted) appears to be the gas industry's response to Gasland. The entire movie is a bunch of people with a vested interest in hydraulic fracturing being interviewed. An utter farce.The industry has either paid jobbers to write glowing 10/10 reviews or made their own staff construct the reviews to try and give a false rating. Who in their right mind goes and gives a documentary 10/10, no room for improvement? They are clearly paid to write these bogus reviews.I am sure this review in itself will be given poor ratings as well, just like the other negative review of the film on IMDb.

FrackNation, in terms of documentary filmmaking, is a competent exercise in trying to get to the bottom of an issue that needs to be dissected. I found it a more entertaining and less vindictive watch than Josh Fox's Gasland, the anti-fracking documentary that is heavily examined and critiqued in this film. I firmly believe in terms of approach and direction that if you were to show the same audience both Gasland and FrackNation back-to-back, the consensus would be that FrackNation's information is more accessible and caters more to the public, whereas Gasland caters to the more science-minded individual. Now which approach and direction leads to the correct distribution of facts I'm still trying to figure out.I guess I should begin by saying that fracking (formerly known as "hydraulic fracturing") is the process in which a large machine drills into the ground from a well - roughly a mile deep - straight down, before it turns sideways and exhibits hard pressure, extracting natural gas from shale and sending it back up through the well.The film stars Phelim McAleer, an investigative journalist whose "freelance" title better not make you laugh. McAleer is a stand-up guy, a strong interviewer, and a serious-minded writer, and was inspired to make this film when his question about the water supply in Dimmock, Pennsylvania (the main town of focus in Gasland) is casually dismissed when asked to Josh Fox. McAleer makes an effort to visit the residents of Dimmock, Pennsylvania, who Fox depicted to be suffering from the effects of fracking considerably. In this film, we saw pro-fracking gatherings in the street and learn that after Fox's film was released the town of Dimmock received much help they didn't really need since the effects of fracking were not harming them. They were actually booning their economy and helping farmers, the long, and sadly-dying, chain of Americans.Gasland's tagline was "Can you set your water on fire?," and featured several clips of Fox and the locals lighting their tapwater on fire. All of them claimed it was a direct result of fracking in the area, and that the numerous chemicals the process utilized had found their way in the water supply and contaminated it with things like benzine and methane. McAleer's research and interviews with locals reveal that methane in the water supply has existed long before fracking even began, and the process has been around for many, many years to begin with, with no reports of it harming the water supply (it drills a mile past it, even).Not to mention, in Gasland, fracking is depicted in the light that leads one to believe it is highly unregulated, which leads to the conclusion that this is why people are lighting their tapwater on fire. Quite the contrary. The film (and research on my part) shows the pile of paperwork that must be done before the drilling process can commence. It is a very regulated procedure. Not long ago, my state Illinois approved fracking but, as the state is known to do, passed strict regulations - the strictest of all the states that allow fracking to be conducted.FrackNation does a solid job of getting the facts right, from what research can tell me. The thing I appreciate about McAleer as a filmmaker and as a documentary personality is that he doesn't seem to enter the film with the preconceived notion to dismantle the institution and the process of anti-fracking protests or vice-versa. He wants answers, and as a journalist, he goes about them the right way. He stages formal interviews, he asks the tough question, and he holds a tough magnifying glass to opposition, even when the opposition tries to recoil and stay hidden. The examination process alone makes this a pretty recommendable viewing.The film was funded on donations from the crowd-sourcing website Kickstarter, which allows people to post information about potential-products and asking anyone on the web who believes in the product (whether it be a film, a documentary, a piece of technology, a novel, etc) to send a donation of whatever amount they see fit.So, the real question is what do I think of Gasland after seeing the film? I still find it relative in some regards because it's a film that shows a perspective and goes about it in a mature and sensible way. However, examination at even a basic level makes it a highly questionable piece of work as of now.When I assign the accursed (and soon to be scrapped) star rating to films, especially documentaries, I consider content, direction, approach, presentation, obvious bias, the personality of the filmmaker at hand, and stylistic attributes (if applicable). FrackNation succeeds on most levels to a certain degree and earns a recommendation. An in-depth examination and a fact-checker I am not. It does the job of giving the viewer a strong ground on which reputable points are made in the favor of the pro-fracking side. It successfully made me consider on a deeper level the process of hydraulic fracturing and encouraged me to research outside of three documentaries. That has to mean something, right? Starring: Phelim McAleer. Directed by: Ann McElhinney, Phelim McAleer, and Magdalena Segieda.